Debunking Marxism 101 (Updated)

As in the series on Austrian economics, not all posts actually debunk Marxism, but sometimes provide outlines or summaries of Marxist theory or interesting points on Marxism or Karl Marx’s life and thought. There are also some posts where constructive things can be said: on endogenous money, the falsity of Say’s law and the monetary theory of production, how some of Marx’s economic thought anticipated Keynes, but even here the discussions in Marx’s Capital are simply obsolete and have long been superseded by modern Post Keynesian theory, and are mainly of historical interest.

In what follows, sometimes Marxist economic theory will be debunked by means of Post Keynesian economics (which is what this blog advocates), though frequently I have my own original criticisms or follow the arguments of other critics of Marxism.

It is important to remember that Post Keynesian economics – although it has severe criticisms of laissez faire capitalism and neoclassical or Austrian economics – is still strongly distinct from Marxist economics. Post Keynesian economics is not Marxism, and leading Post Keynesians and economists whose work has been foundational for Post Keynesian economics have rejected the labour theory of value, the basis of Marxist economics.

John Maynard Keynes, for example, said that Marx’s theories were founded “on a silly mistake of old Mr Ricardo’s” (Skidelsky 1992: 517) – namely, the labour theory of value. For Michał Kalecki and Joan Robinson the labour theory of value was “metaphysical” (Brus 1977: 59; Robinson 1964: 39), and for Piero Sraffa it was “a purely mystical conception” (Kurz and Salvadori 2010: 199). If the labour theory of value is unsound, then the whole Marxist edifice constructed on it cannot but fall and collapse. Moreover, the classical Marxist idea of historical determinism is also incompatible with the Post Keynesian idea of the fundamental uncertainty of the future.

For Marx’s theory of the “law of value” in volume 1 of Capital, see here:

For a detailed discussion of how Marx and Engels continued to think of the theory of value in volume 1 of Capital as an empirical theory of pre-modern commodity exchange before modern capitalism (where prices of production are anchors for the price system), see here:

(i) Bibliographical Posts.(ii) Marx and Engels’ Works Online(iii) Karl Marx’s Life 1818–1883(iv) Documentaries about and discussions of Karl Marx and Marxism.(v) Against the labour theory of value.(vi) On the alleged tendency of the rate of profit to fall.(vii) On Marx’s “Critique of the Gotha Program.”(viii) Discussions of David Harvey’s lectures on Reading Marx’s Capital Volume 1.(ix) Steve Keen on Marxism.(x) On Marx’s views on phrenology and race.(xi) On Marx’s views on slavery.(xii) Marxism, authoritarianism and imperialism.(xiii) Against Marx’s Communist Manifesto.(xiv) Against Sraffian and Marxist long-run equilibrium.(xv) Chomsky and Marxism.(xvi) Against Temporal Single System Marxism (TSSI)(xvii) Marx’s Monetary Theory
(xviii) Marx versus Keynes(xix) Critical Summaries of Volume 1 of Capital(xx) Marx’s Theory of Wage Determination in Capitalism(xxi) Useful Insights in Capital(xxii) Marx’s Views on Capitalism and Imperialism and Colonialism(xxiii) Historical Development of Marxism(xxiv) Responses to Marxists(xxv) Failed Predictions of Marx and Engels(xxvi) Marxism and Poststructuralism(xxvii) Marx and Immigration(xxviii) Engels’ Pause and Marx’s Hasty Generalisations about Capitalism(xxix) Marx and Increasing Intensity of Labour in Capitalism(xxx) Marx and Technological Unemployment.

I also recommend my series of posts that are critical chapter by chapter summaries of volume 1 of Capital in section xix below (or listed in a separate post here).

Kurz, Heinz D. and Neri Salvadori. 2010. “Sraffa and the Labour Theory of Value: A Few Observations,” in John Vint et al. (eds.), Economic Theory and Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Ian Steedman. Routledge, London and New York. 189–215.

An interesting blog and certainly a detailed defense of Keynesianism. But by focusing on Marx's economics, I think you miss the spirit. I agree his labor theory doesn't make sense but I think it's something of a straw man. Far better to look at Kalecki who gave a succinct summation of profit having nothing to do with surplus value. The crucial defect of Keynesianism (one not shared by Marx) is that it shirks the central issue - concentrated minority power which has been with us for thousands of years.